Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2602.06903

The First Known Problem That Is FPT with Respect to Node Scanwidth but Not Treewidth

Abstract

Structural parameters of graphs, such as treewidth, play a central role in the study of the parameterized complexity of graph problems. Motivated by the study of parametrized algorithms on phylogenetic networks, scanwidth was introduced recently as a new treewidth-like structural parameter for directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) that respects the edge directions in the DAG. The utility of this width measure has been demonstrated by results that show that a number of problems that are fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) with respect to both treewidth and scanwidth allow algorithms with a better dependence on scanwidth than on treewidth. More importantly, these scanwidth-based algorithms are often much simpler than their treewidth-based counterparts: the name ``scanwidth'' reflects that traversing a tree extension (the scanwidth-equivalent of a tree decomposition) of a DAG amounts to ``scanning'' the DAG according to a well-chosen topological ordering. While these results show that scanwidth is useful especially for solving problems on phylogenetic networks, all problems studied through the lens of scanwidth so far are either FPT with respect to both scanwidth and treewidth, or W[$\ell$]-hard, for some $\ell \ge 1$, with respect to both. In this paper, we show that scanwidth is not just a proxy for treewidth and provides information about the structure of the input graph not provided by treewidth, by proving a fairly stark complexity-theoretic separation between these two width measures. Specifically, we prove that Weighted Phylogenetic Diversity with Dependencies is FPT with respect to the scanwidth of the food web but W[$\ell$]-hard with respect to its treewidth, for all $\ell \ge 1$. To the best of our knowledge, no such separation between these two width measures has been shown for any problem before.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jannik Schestag, Norbert Zeh. 2026-02-06. The First Known Problem That Is FPT with Respect to Node Scanwidth but Not Treewidth. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.06903

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

CVP Is NP-Complete for Principal Cyclotomic Ideals

We prove that exact Euclidean decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete on the coefficient lattices of nonzero principal ideals in the power-of-two cyclotomic rings $R_d:=\mathbb{Z}[y]/(y^d+1)$. Our deterministic reduction from Exact Cover by 3-Sets (X3C) produces a target and a squared threshold $Δ$ such that the closest squared distance is exactly $Δ$ in YES instances and at least $Δ+4$ in NO instances. This also implies $\mathsf{NP}$-hardness of exact search-CVP under polynomial-time Turing reductions. We also transfer the resulting principal-ideal CVP instances to full-rank principal ideals of the cyclic quotient ring $\mathbb{Z}[X]/(X^D-1)$, where $D:=2d$. Their coefficient lattices are invariant under cyclic coordinate shifts. The lift preserves principality and multiplies corresponding squared distances by eight. Thus, on principal cyclic ideal lattices, exact decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete and exact search-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard. We also obtain uniformly computable fixed cyclotomic and cyclic families in which only the target and threshold depend on the X3C collection. Consequently, a polynomial-time solution to exact decision-CVPP on either family would imply $\mathsf{NP}\subseteq\mathsf{P}/\mathrm{poly}$ and collapse the polynomial hierarchy to $Σ_2^{\mathsf{P}}$. To our knowledge, the cyclic results answer Micciancio's questions of whether exact decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard on cyclic lattices and on a fixed family of cyclic lattices, even when restricted to full-rank principal cyclic ideals. Finally, under the coefficient embedding, we prove that exact decision-module-SIVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete on free rank-two modules over the same cyclotomic rings.

cs.CC

Fooling Thresholds of Halfspaces

We initiate the study of constructing explicit pseudorandom generators for thresholds of halfspaces with seed length polylogarithmic in the number of halfspaces. This class of functions lies at the frontier of circuit complexity [CTW26]. We show that the generator designed by O'Donnell, Servedio, and Tan for polytopes [OST22] also fools this broader class. To analyze the generator, we develop a threshold-specific smooth approximation framework based on a Bentkus-type mollifier. We prove derivative bounds for this mollifier and also establish a Boolean anticoncentration theorem for thresholds of halfspaces via a random thinning argument. These ingredients imply that the generator $δ$-fools every $k$-out-of-$m$ threshold of $m$ halfspaces over $\{-1,1\}^n$ with seed length $\widetilde{O}(κ^{6+2\varepsilon}\log^{6+2\varepsilon}\!m\cdotδ^{-(2+2\varepsilon)}\log n)$, for any arbitrarily small constant $\varepsilon>0$, where $κ=\min\{k,m-k+1\}$. The random thinning argument also yields bounds on the noise sensitivity and Gaussian surface area for thresholds of halfspaces, leading to learning algorithms under both the uniform and Gaussian distributions.

cs.CC

An Oracle Separating Conjectures about Incompleteness in the Finite Domain

Pudlák [Pud17] lists several major conjectures from the field of proof complexity and asks for oracles that separate corresponding relativized conjectures. Among these conjectures are: - $\mathsf{DisjNP}$: The class of all disjoint NP-pairs does not have many-one complete elements. - $\mathsf{SAT}$: NP does not contain many-one complete sets that have P-optimal proof systems. - $\mathsf{UP}$: UP does not have many-one complete problems. - $\mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}$: $\text{NP}\cap\text{coNP}$ does not have many-one complete problems. As one answer to this question, we construct an oracle relative to which $\mathsf{DisjNP}$, $\neg \mathsf{SAT}$, $\mathsf{UP}$, and $\mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}$ hold, i.e., there is no relativizable proof for the implication $\mathsf{DisjNP}\wedge \mathsf{UP}\wedge \mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}\Rightarrow\mathsf{SAT}$. In particular, regarding the conjectures by Pudlák this extends a result by Khaniki [Kha19].

cs.CC